Summary
The Court declined interference with the transfer of investigations into Ram Navami incidents in West Bengal to the NIA. After the High Court’s direction, the Central Government independently invoked Section 6(5), and that notification was not challenged. The Court confined its decision to investigative jurisdiction and left the truth and sufficiency of the allegations for investigation.
Issues
- Whether the NIA’s assumption of investigation warranted interference after the Central Government invoked Section 6(5).
Provisions considered
- Section 6(1)–(6), National Investigation Agency Act, 2008The reporting mechanism does not confine the Central Government to State-supplied material; subsection (5) independently permits a suo motu direction, followed by transfer of records under subsection (6). (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Held
- Information relating to a scheduled offence triggers reporting duties on the police and State Government. The Central Government must assess the scheduled character of the offence and suitability for NIA investigation, considering its gravity and other relevant factors, and may use information from other sources. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- Section 6(5) confers an independent suo motu power to direct NIA investigation upon the requisite opinion. A direction under subsection (4) or (5) requires the State investigators to stop proceeding and transmit the relevant records. (¶ 10)
- The subsequent Central Government notification expressly invoked Section 6(5), and its validity was not challenged. The NIA had registered the cases and the Special Court had taken cognizance. These circumstances did not warrant entertaining the State’s special leave petitions. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 15, 16)
- The Court did not decide the veracity or sufficiency of the allegations or restrict the precise scope of the investigation at this stage. High Court observations were confined to the validity of NIA jurisdiction. (¶¶ 12, 14, 17)
Result
Special leave petitions disposed of; High Court judgment affirmed for the stated reasons, with its observations confined to NIA jurisdiction. Pending applications disposed of.